Our friends at Power Line note this Novak column which looks at a Gallup analysis I can’t find on the web. (Here’s an earlier version of the same sort of analysis, showing that, as of this summer, RG beat HRC among frequent church attenders--including, most importantly, those who are politically independent.) Novak suggests that the Anybody-But-Rudy social conservative leaders are out of touch with their rank-and-file. Perhaps; for the latter, Anybody-But-Hillary might be the more important consideration.
But let me add another bit of polling analysis to the mix, this one from the invaluable Pew Forum. It stresses the gap between self-described Republican social issue voters and the rest of the party identifiers. It’s a big gap, with the social issue voters comprising a substantial portion of the solidly Republican voters, but a candidate who’s going to be successful in the primary and general elections is going to have to reach out to those who are less reliable as Republican voters. And if the social issue folks are serious about Anybody-But-Hillary, they’re going to have to countenance that kind of outreach.
JK wrote: "Novak suggests that the Anybody-But-Rudy social conservative leaders are out of touch with their rank-and-file. Perhaps; for the latter, Anybody-But-Hillary might be the more important consideration."
Perhaps a little of both. The SC leaders may focus most of their energy on the more active of their brood, since that's where the money likely comes from. But the "social conservative" umbrella is bigger, and that may be where some of the "out of touch" sentiment is coming from.
I'd guess the larger dynamic -- how much larger I do not know -- is the "Anybody-But-Hillary" factor. That will, I think, get more prominent as people let the idea of her in the White House settle into their brain. Right now it's a distant and vague anguish, not a near-term horror.
JK wrote: "It’s a big gap, with the social issue voters comprising a substantial portion of the solidly Republican voters, but a candidate who’s going to be successful in the primary and general elections is going to have to reach out to those who are less reliable as Republican voters. And if the social issue folks are serious about Anybody-But-Hillary, they’re going to have to countenance that kind of outreach."
Amen. The question is whether or not they frame that in their minds as an abandonment of their principles (as some in this comment section seem to do), or an accommodation of a practical reality.
Bush has created an articulation, competence backlash in the party, that is momentarily trumping traditional concerns, such as abortion. The rank and file want a leader who isn't an embarrassment, who doesn't make them cringe in front of a camera and a mic, who is well-read, well-spoken and who isn't a wimp. The rank and file want a guy who holds people accountable, who won't lose his moral, strategic clarity by virtue of repeating the idiotic mantras devised by Karen Hughes, {another embarrassment by the way...}.
Bush has so outraged the base, that he's effectively changed what the party is looking for in a leader.
Rudy is everything that Bush isn't. He isn't some fella oozing a frat boy demeanor, trying to ingratiate himself by joshing and tossing around nicknames. And that's why he's going to get the nomination, because he's earned it, because he deserved it.
And if the social issue folks are serious about Anybody-But-Hillary, they’re going to have to countenance that kind of outreach.
Rudy is as bad or worse on social issues as Hillary. That information has not really gotten around yet. I've seen polls that the majority of Republicans think Rudy is pro-life.
Rudy is a liberal Democrat who happens to be running on the Republican ticket.
Bush has so outraged the base, that he's effectively changed what the party is looking for in a leader.
I agree. In my case, I'm looking for a conservative, which Bush has never been. And that makes Rudy Giuliani totally unacceptable.
The party tacked left with Bush, and should have learned from its mistake. People like Dan want to go double or nothing and try to win with somebody who makes Bush look like Burke.
If an articulate liberal is what you are searching for, maybe Bill Clinton is available. He's certainly to the right of Rudy on most things.
"[A] liberal Democrat," ............. please. If he were so liberal why did he clean up the city? Why did he crack down on the "squeegee men." Why did he initiate a host of policies that only pissed off the New York City establishment and especially "the Gray Lady" herself.
If he were such a liberal Democrat, how was it he managed to irritate the New York City Democratic machine as no one since .......... I can't recall who.
Why did he crack down on the "squeegee men."
You can't be serious.
If he were such a liberal Democrat, how was it he managed to irritate the New York City Democratic machine as no one since .......... I can't recall who.
He did no such thing. He went to great pains to assure them that he was as liberal as they were. Hell, he was more liberal than Bill Clinton on several issues.
Here is Giuliani explaining why he was endorsing Mario Cuomo for governor.
Interviewer: - “Broadly, what is Mr. Pataki’s consummate flaw?”
Giuliani: - “He has plans to reduce taxes, that are so ambitious, and so inconsistent with the performance of the economy of this state …. “
Interviewer: - “In your mind that’s a no-no?”
Giuliani: - “It would be a disaster. It would be an absolute disaster. It would be the kind of tax shift that substitutes for sound management.”
Here he is being interviewed by Tim Russert.
Tim Russert - "Whether its gays in the military, gun control, campaign finance, late term abortion, you and Hillary Clinton are in sync on those issues."
Giuliani - "Well then, maybe, maybe the other side should stop the “He’s part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”.
More Rudy.
"Well, I'm a Republican mayor, but I"m really not. I'm the mayor of New York City. I ran as a Republican, I ran as a Liberal — which really confuses all kinds of people — and I ran as an Independent, as part of the Independent Party, which actually is now the party that's supporting Ross Perot. So I ran a fusion candidacy, like my predecessor Fiorello LaGuardia. So I'm not the most partisan of Republicans."
No, I think thats a bit of an understatement.
Is that enough, or shall I keep going?
Here we see Giuliani supporting partial birth abortion, which I believe you said was monsterous.
“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded.
This was in 1999, so I guess his stated position has changed. But before political expediency intervened his position was squarely in the far left corner of the Democratic Party.
Rudy in 2004.
Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage.
The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush's proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot.
"I don't think it's ripe for decision at this point," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani, who lived with a gay Manhattan couple when he moved out of Gracie Mansion during his nasty divorce.
snoqualmie heder tention actiniarian concile jicaquean pismire carburization
https://cheatdedomiw.nm.ru/cj.html >Sale Coach Bags
https://gtaftetgtist.nm.ru/7x.html
https://alieiatioibo.nm.ru/6t.html >Most Dangerous Neighbourhoods In Canada
https://spiritualiss.nm.ru/a8.html
https://earadaltn.nm.ru/hw.html >Thanksgiving Bird Joke
https://llcticllkhn.nm.ru/2s.html